Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My understanding of the collusion alleged is that it relates to cooperation in hacking DNC and sharing stolen info.
|
Well, there's no allegation in any formal sense. Things get alleged in complaints. There's no complaint. There is an investigation. It's scope is not entirely clear.
Many conservatives play a game of saying, the allegation is that the President did [some straw man]. There's no proof of that. So, no collusion.
But collusion is not a legal term. So it doesn't really mean anything. If you are parsing what collusion is, you are falling for the rhetorical ploy of Trump defenders.
We didn't know that the FBI had a counterintelligence investigation going until this week, and that Mueller took it over. That just goes to show that the scope of what he is doing is not public.
Quote:
|
I think we’ll find he has business conflicts all over the place, including Russia, and that he worked to hide them. I don’t think we’ll find some grand conspiracy between him and the Russians regarding interference in the election.
|
I don't know what you mean by a "grand" conspiracy, but his campaign manager gave the Russians campaign analytics, and the Russians did various things to try to affect the election. That is a conspiracy regarding interference in the election. What else do you need? Or is that not grand enough for you?
Quote:
|
The Russians didn’t need him to assist in interfering in the election. They just needed him to happily parrot what they stole and disclosed. Perhaps Don Jr. was involved in collusion, as was Stone, but even there, they were opportunists, simply exploiting an opportunity to receive info.
|
Winona Ryder didn't need the clothes she walked out of Saks with, but that doesn't mean she wasn't on film doing it.
